MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200916606

Confronting Computers: Debates about Computers at the Public Archives of Canada during the 1960s

2006· article· en· W2200916606 on OpenAlex
Betsey Baldwin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSkepticismLibrary scienceSociologyArtPhilosophyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des annes 1960, le personnel des Archives publiques du Canada a commenc faire face deux aspects de l'informatisation qui sont toujours aussi pertinents aujourd'hui : l'automatisation comme outil de reprage d'information et la prservation des documents informatiss.Ce texte examine les expriences et perceptions initiales de l'usage des ordinateurs aux Archives publiques telles que les rvlent le premier projet d'instrument de recherche automatis et les discussions originelles au sujet de la gestion des documents lectroniques.Les ides et ractions des archivistes par rapport aux ordinateurs durant les annes 1960 comprenaient un mlange d'enthousiasme et de scepticisme.Le discours de cette premire dcennie d'usage des ordinateurs sert nous rappeler les dbats intellectuels fondamentaux au sujet des changements technologiques et des archives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it